For those who want proof of the exodus

[Minimalist]

Try English, will you drippy.

[Angrboda]

Non‐existent cities

Many of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses), the two "treasure cities" claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlment was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period, and was an obscure garrison town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Greco–Roman accounts. Per‐Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides, was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.
. . . . . .
Edom

Edom was not yet a nation. In fact, the region wasn't even inhabited yet. The place the Hebrews stop at wasn't even built until 800 BCE, as the earliest Iron Age settlements (copper mining camps) date to the 9th century BCE and the main excavated sites have been dated between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE. However, the latest the Exodus could have occurred and still be biblically accurate is in the 13th century BCE.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

Yeah, right. Archaeology has been real kind to the bible.

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean other than the fact that I've actually read the text? 

The flood story is clearly talking about a LOT of water...but whether it was enough to cover the ENTIRE earth is another matter.

The Exodus story is clearly talking about a LOT of Israelites...more than one guy, his brother and their wives.

-and that's unfortunate...since it never happened, don't you think?

[athrock]

Let me get this straight....

You said the Bible is "shit".

I said "prove it" by showing that ANY archaeological evidence has proved that the Bible has been wrong.

Now, if you want to get into the problems with Richard Carrier's stupidity, we can (I did a quick search of this forum, and it's been covered extensively in the past, btw).

But the issue at hand presently is whether you have hard, empirical evidence that the Bible is shit. Otherwise, this is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

Hey, asshole.  YOU brought up Carrier and made some bullshit claim that YOU could disprove it.  I'm waiting.  Personally having read Carrier's work and seen your lame efforts I know that Carrier has nothing to fear but the ball is still in your court.  Admit you are a bullshit artist or put up your claims to the test.

Every forum needs its bull-y...I guess you've adopted that role.

I'm curious...have you ever read critiques from other skeptics regarding Carrier and the whole Mythicist nonsense he promotes? Seriously, when even non-believers are distancing themselves from the likes of Carrier, that ought to be a red flag...accept for those whose thirst for the kool-aid is insatiable, of course.

I have no problem with GOOD arguments against Christianity, but Mythicism? 

[Pat Mustard]

So...see above.  The narratives you're discussing are considered to be establishment legends, myths, or epics.  The connection between Joseph expressed in these comments (and in the documentary) and any existent ruins are tortured beyond belief...but that's irrelevant, we actually do expect those narratives to refer to something.  If the authors had placed the events in a specific time, they would use details that they knew of that time (or, more accurately in this case..details that they -thought- they knew of the time) to provide a context for their narrative.  This appears to be -exactly- what the authors did...mistakes and all, when settling upon the narrative.  That it is placed within a timeframe that will not allow it is simply an effect of their ignorance as to chronology and the details of the world in which they placed the narrative.  If it happened some other time (slide the timeline)..then the details in the account are still plainly wrong and we are still discussing a non-factual narrative.

Exactly, you even see it in modern culture the whole time. Ever watch a 1950s 1960s era film about King Arthur. The arms, armour, living spaces (specifically castles), mannerisms and mores all come not from the period shortly after the fall of the Principate in the West, but from the high Middle Ages. This is for two reasons, that is when the legends originated and they were part of the genesis of the Medieval Romance genre (which often took past events or legends and put the essentially in then modern settings) and partly because culture at that time (post WW2) was geared to see anything between the fall of Rome and the advent of gun dominated warfare as being, castles, plate armour, horses and for the women wimples.

You're getting the exact same kind of thing with the genesis-exodus creation mythology.

[Drich]

So out of a complete vacuum you just stop believing in the hindu god or and God.

If this is the case then you are correct. You are a unique snowflake the world has never seen the likes of and shall never see again.

However if you used evidence based reasoning to come to a conclusion their isn't any god(s) then you are a conformist like your non hindu brethern.

Your fundamental dishonesty continues to amaze. I know damn well you have seen the difference between agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist explained, so your last sentence is either another of your straw men or incontrovertible evidence that your comprehension is close to nil.

And evidence-based reasoning is now conformity? Perhaps. Conformity to reality. But group think? That's your territory, Sport.

I suppose that means your fellow Christians, who believe on insufficient evidence (at least those who haven't risen to the self-serving standards you outline in your A/S/K talking points) are what -- mavericks because they don't care about good evidence?

Ah, so your the snow flake. I knew I felt a chill in the air, thought it to be alpo, but now after your statment I see that your the one.

Again evidence based reasoning is not the issue. It is the conformity to use 'science' as a crutch. a "god of the gaps" in reverse to fill or filter/interpret all the evidence your world view provides in such away as to 'kill' God. As if one world view (science) precluded the other(God). It's the fact that all 'thought and reasoning based on 'evidence' stops at the feet of science and theory. and is not examined any further, that what makes you a conformist. You don't even know how to look past what science serves up critically.

Science says: Global Ice age by 2000 You buy a heavier coat, then in 2000 it says Global warming you buy sunblock, now it says global climate change your buying Al gore's Carbon credits to off set your carbon foot print.. Why? because this is the same science that 'killed god' and allowed you to live as an atheist. So now you worship and serve this new master, just not with those terms, oh, no that would have defeated the point of killing God to begin with.

[athrock]

And as I pointed out previously, archaeology has been VERY kind to Jews and Christians thus far.

When you pointed this out, did you do so with specific examples and citations?

Because, while some of the OT and NT contain some archaeological accuracies, they also contain many inaccuracies. 

And not just minor inaccuracies, major ones.

For example: the vast majority of archaeological evidence points to the Hebrews arising from the Canaanites, not invading from another land. 

[/quote]

Non‐existent cities

Many of the places mentioned in the Exodus did not exist within the same chronological period as one another. Pithom (Per‐Atum/Tckenu) and Raamses (Per‐Ramesses), the two "treasure cities" claimed to have been built by the Hebrews, never existed at the same time. Pithom did not exist as a significant settlement before the 26th Dynasty. Prior to this, the settlment was known as Tckenu, and was still referred to as such in the Ptolemaic period, and was an obscure garrison town which mainly, if not exclusively, served as a waystation for Egyptian expeditions. Even in its enlarged Roman state, the town barely registered on either Egyptian or Greco–Roman accounts. Per‐Ramesses, the Royal Residence of the Ramessides, was abandoned at the end of the New Kingdom, centuries earlier.
. . . . . .
Edom

Edom was not yet a nation. In fact, the region wasn't even inhabited yet. The place the Hebrews stop at wasn't even built until 800 BCE, as the earliest Iron Age settlements (copper mining camps) date to the 9th century BCE and the main excavated sites have been dated between the 8th and 6th centuries BCE. However, the latest the Exodus could have occurred and still be biblically accurate is in the 13th century BCE.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

Yeah, right.  Archaeology has been real kind to the bible.

I won't waste my time trying to illustrate the truth of what I said since it's clear that you can't or won't accept any examples. But let me say this: The Old and New Testaments of the Bible may have all sorts of problems that need to be sorted out if one is to be a believer, but archaeology isn't among them. If anything, the evidence in the ground suggests that the Bible is surprisingly reliable with regard to these things.

Whether that accuracy supports its supernatural claims is another matter, of course.

[The Grand Nudger]

When your worldview, Drich, includes a god that creates women out of ribs and floods the world...or a gaggle of jews wandering the desert eating sky food for a generation....then yes, your worldview conflicts with a scientific worldview.  Hell, it conflicts with a -sane- worldview.

[Drich]

Which is to say that you, as an individual, have not yet heard a compelling argument for theism. Maybe you never will.

But that is NOT the same thing as saying that compelling arguments do not exist, is it? After all, there are lots of atheists who finally run across the one with their name on it...

No, I have not encountered a compelling reason to believe and neither (by definition) have any other people who are, at this time, atheists. Of course, there are former atheists who found or experienced something that caused them to change their minds. By the same token, there are former theists who now say they saw through the "reasons" they previously had for believing.

Both happen for the same reason. Because a wise man builds his house on the rock of truth and the foolish man builds his house on sand. When tested by the wind and rain the wise man's house stands while the foolish man's house falls.

If an Atheist truly seeks the truth about god he will find it. if a religious man builds his faith on empty religion he will loose it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ath......If you won't waste your time demonstrating it, you probably shouldn't have wasted our time claiming it, or indeed wasted your time restating it, in that very response.